I thought the group critique was extremely useful as it allowed to me see what my peers’ opinions were of my final outcome and if they had the same opinions as me about my designs. I received a wide range of feedback throughout the critique, mainly positive;
-The front cover of my specimen looks effective and expressive
-The typeface links well to my original word nicely
-The personality of my typeface is clear to see and was explained well
-It is clear what the typeface could be used for in terms of the specimen
-The specimen looks good and is in sync with the definition of the word
-Clear idea of what the typeface will be used for
I also received feedback on areas that could be improved;
-Some of the lines in the letters may be too messy,
-Make the rules visually clearer, was there a rule? ; The bends within each letter of the typeface occur at regular times throughout (in a pattern, continuously), also the line weight stays consistent throughout.
-Be more specific towards the purpose of the typeface; e.g editorial, branding; The purpose of the typeface was shown in context through the specimen (poster/editorial design)
-The bold version of the typeface can become quite hard to read ; I agree with this, I chose to only use and develop the light and regular versions in my final specimen
-Talk about the different weights of my typeface; This is explained and shown more in depth on my design development design board, I didn't want to over complicate and repeat myself in my Rationale
-Experiment with kerning; After experimenting briefly with kerning, I thought the regular kerning still looked best
-Explain in the Rationale how the artist Nejv Prah inspired me; This is mentioned in my research design board
-The Rationale scale on the specimen may be too small; It is kept as 6pt as the actual design and typeface is the main attraction on the cover, the rationale is just an extra small touch to explain the word and typeface links
No comments:
Post a Comment